Saturday, 17 March 2012

The 'trade' in children

Fausty links to an article in the Telegraph, which quotes from the Mail, about what would appear to be malpractice by a doctor working for children's social services.


On 7th March I posted about this subject and that of Hollie Grieg, from which:
"Without in any manner denigrating the importance of the Hollie Grieg case, it should also be remembered that week after week Christopher Booker, in his regular Sunday Telegraph columns, reports on the injustices of child protection courts - examples hereherehere, and here - in which judgements are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question."
I ended that post thus:
"That the Hollie Greig case - and that of the child protection courts - leaves a nasty taste in the mouth cannot surely be denied. If questioned no doubt the powers that be will inform us that all decisions, both judicial and social, are taken with wisdom - yet there is an unpleasant smell starting to emanate."
If Dr Hibbert is guilty as alleged, then it must call into question all evidence that has been presented in child protection cases in which he has been involved. In that earlier post I asked some pertinent questions relating to what has actually happened to the 8,000 children taken into care each year for the past three years. Do the maths - that is 20+ children a day taken into care. 


Returning to Christopher Booker, his column for tomorrow deals with instances where the 'right' report has been bought. A random trawl of 126 cases found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. As with Hibbert, this finding must also call into question the evidence presented in those 126 cases.


I don't know about an unpleasant smell starting to emanate - it has already become overpowering, fanned by the inactivity or interest of 649 MPs.




Update: Richard North posts on this problem - go read!

15 comments:

Ian Hills said...

Very good post.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

IH: Thanks.

Dave H said...

But you have to have privacy in the family courts because it's in the best interests of the children.

Or at least it is on the planet of the Bureaucrats where they don't want their decisions challenged. Fortunately they never make mistakes or have interests other than those of the child at the top of their priority list.

Woodsy42 said...

Would be interesting to know what proportion of 'expert witnesses' also work full time writing court reports, rather than actually working directly, in other areas of expertise too

Fausty said...

I just don't know what can be done about this, Mr W. As you say, MPs won't touch it. The press is gagged. Individuals are targeted.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

DH: On a serious note, yes there has to be a certain amount of secrecy but at the same time there also has to be openness - difficult I know, but it would probably help if MPs took an interest in their own constituencies and actually questioned their local authorities.

W42: True.......

Fausty: Like all 'scandals' the truth will eventually surface. The problem is the damage done in the meantime. No doubt lessons will be learnt when the truth surfaces and those that are at fault will get promoted......?

The Boiling Frog said...

649 MPs? I thought there were 650 - have you already begun to 'dispatch' them WfW? ;-)

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TBF: True there are 650 but I discounted John Hemmings as he has made an effort........?

DP111 said...

So far the spotlight is on the so-called experts. But what of the judges? It is with them that the buck stops. So far they have got off on the basis that they have merely taken the advice of experts. But in cases such as these, where the opinion of an expert is decisive, the judge needs to determine if the expert is truly so. Again a number of experts is not sufficient, if they operate as a body.

DP111 said...

And by the by, where our all powerful representatives of the people, who were elected to defend the common man and woman from the depredations of the government or its judicial arm, and to call them to account in front of parliamentt?

PeterCharles said...

DP brings up the point about judges. I think there are two considerations here, the first is that I suspect the judges selected for the family courts will likely be the least able and selected more for their toucy-feely and 'bleeding heart' attributes, second you have to remember that these judgements are made not on the weight of evidence but on the balance of probability deliberately biased in the interests of the child. Unfortunately the interests of the child are what the social services says are their interests.

This is one small crack in the system that has proven so toxic that every device and means will be employed to, first, downplay the seriousness of the problem, cue lots of assurances that the psychiatric evidence was only a very small, insignificant part of the evidence and the judgements were all very safe, and secondly to contain any further investigation into wider areas.

TomTom said...

Actually it might be better to sort out Child Social Services which Gordon Brown had merge with Schools so if you look at your Council Tax Statement you will find c 50% goes on "Child Services"

Blair brought in a bonus system for adoptions which requires a good flow of quality children.

The ideological programming of social Workers has much to do with distortion of evidence.

It is not always Judges that are at fault much as I would like to shoot quite a few

English Pensioner said...

Do the councils get paid by someone for each child adopted?
The son of a close friend of mine is trying to bring up his four year old daughter by himself as his wife died of cancer just over a year ago. Unlike a single mother, he gets little if any help from the social services etc and their main objective seems to be to try to get her put up for adoption. Fortunately, there are two sets of grandparents, an older brother/sister-in-law and numerous friends who help by having the child when necessary, but he still fears that there is a strong chance that the council will try to take his daughter into care.
We may all be prejudiced, but the social workers seem to show extraordinary zeal in pursuing their objective, and there is a strong belief that money is at stake. After all, a white child of good parentage would be in demand by a lot of potential adopters who would be happy to pay a large backhander.

Anonymous said...

So, apart from BOOKER writing mainly as an independent blogger, we can safely assume that until the Mail printed all the MSM stayed silent.
While children are being kidnapped from their parents and "sold" into other families (do not forget the blood money that each SS department gets from the gov for placing children for adoption from care) the MSM stayed silent, doubtless scared into silence by the law which outlaws anyone being concerned and expressing that concern.
Under the mealy-mouthed disguise of "protecting the children from publicity, (while actually protecting themselves from much-needed publicity) the government is stealing children from their parents. A serious case of civilisation having been put on hold, if not suspended, by government.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

DP111: So why can't judges be elected? Why can't judges be elected for local courts by those who live in that locale? Why can't the people elect judges who will sentence to the limit if that is what people want?

PC: Agreed.

TT: See response to DP111 and yes lets shoot a few pour encourager les autres.....

EP: See comment by TT - yup, the get a bonus for each successful adoption.

Your friend needs to be extremely careful.......

Anon: Yup, the MSM has done as have our MPs - buried their heads in the sand......